Concerns of a player who quit DH1

Without giving too much away, I'm a 'lost' player, for lack of a better turn. I played for nearly a year before I left because of the many problems I perceived, and through remaining in contact with the friends I had made here, I've been told about here and come to give my impressions. I have a lot of concerns, and I know a few other former players share many of them. So here's what it would take to make me come back. I wouldn't mind being able to come back, and there's a lot of people I sincerely miss RP with. But these two things are the absolute minimums I'd like to see happen to lure me back. And so at the urging of friends who have been trying to rope me back in, and whom I've spoken about all this to, here it goes.

The way I see it, the two biggest issues were at one point very different, and mutually damaging. The one fueled the other to create a much worse situation in general. The two issues? Non-Consent (as it was implemented) and the XP system. I consider both to have had major issues on their own (especially the former) but the sum of the two really ended up creating both a hostile, and an unhealthy play environment. There were other issues, but ultimately, they were just icing on a very substantial layer cake. So, first I will say why I believe each issue is a problem on its own, and then I will elucidate why I feel they combined to make an even nastier chimera.

Now, I've noticed there is a rather large debate thread on XP, and I think it has come up with some good ideas. And some bad ones. But it's obviously just a discussion right now. The fact that it has been pointed out that there is a rather sickeningly large advantage given to the people able to log in from work and devote their entire life to RP on the Mu* (As well as vote whore) is a very good step in the right direction. Frankly, it was the fact I noticed my grades were suffering because of the same behaivor that finally gave me the wakeup call to quit despite many other issues. I am a grad student, so suffering grades is worse than undergrad or high school, it can mean a lot more. I would log on and hang out just to be able to get the XP. Even RP at times I really didn't feel like it and put on a very bad show. The fact was, it was necessary if you wanted to play the game at any level beyond a mook, doubly so if you were not an old hand and desperately wanted to be worthy enough to get involved.

Which leads to another point, often, the sheer need and desire to get more votes led people to RP in scenes they didn't want to be in. Or when they really weren't in the mood to RP. So you'd get very bad performances, just because someone needed votes. Or worse, people idling on the chance they'd get +Votealls or similar votes from people in huge (7+) scenes who can't keep track of everyone in it so just voted for whomever appeared on 'look.' Honestly, did this sort of behaivor help the game? I say no. Honestly, it led to some really poor scenes I wish I hadn't even taken part in because they got so rushed by a desire of the others to go play in another big scene to get still more votes.

Advancement was so difficult that if you wanted to be a major player in the game, you basically had to do so. Even the two day activity thing to get the Activty XP max was seen by me as a must have, the simple fact of how often my levels in a given week came to within a point or two of XP proved that. It was a necessity to keep up with the curve. And feel like you were making any advancement at all. I know I'm not the only one who had this problem either, and the 'necessity' is a major part of what combined with the Non-consent issue. Which I'll go into shortly.

Non-consent as it was implemented created its own issues. Some people seemed to think it gave them carte-blanche to be a jerk. Frankly. There were many responsible players, indeed, many more than there were bad apples. Yet one bad apple can ruin the bunch. It led to many, many bad feelings on both sides of any conflict and often led to post-mortem vendettas against fellow players instead of meaningful rivalries. Worse, it created an environment where a small minority of players who were self-professedly playing only to fight (And were very vocal about that fact), and didn't care about story at all, were able to ruin the game for the many people who did want to develop a story and make an attachment with their character. Even +Escapes, the purported method of saving you, was usually not enough. Many of the sorts of player I mentioned were very, very good and determined about whittling down your +escapes. Doing their utmost to travel until finding you, and attacking. Then rinsing and repeating. Losing multiple escapes a week was not a situation someone could overcome. Yet often the only other option was to simply not RP, which is a horrible thing to be necessary just because it was the only way to preserve a beloved character. That happened to me. For all my levels, for all I tried, for all my friends, I was forced into not being able to RP except in my ships, locked, in hidden space locations and literally forced off the grid because of how fervently someone hunted me. I might have lasted all of a week if I even tried to take part in the scenes I wanted to. I was very active like that.

Now, I realize this may not be a popular opinion amongst some. Lord knows when I played there and it occassionally got brought up on channel it tended to get me flamed to the point I would need to leave the channel. Yet I also remember the many people who would at least privately agree with me. Some of them people I still RP with elsewhere and who believe the same thing - that it was a major issue. I know many people I tried to recruit back in the day who also found out it was non-consent and said "Nope, sorry." Many of them amazingly good RPers who would have been a significant benefit to the Mu*.

And I also realize many of you like the risk. But a large, large portion of Mu*ers don't. Why do you think there are so many consent places? Or at worst semi-consent ICA=ICC places (Do something stupid like waltz naked into the Emperor's throne room and spit in his face... well, sucks to be you. But if your only crime is being someone behind the scenes and a minor player? You aren't going to get killed willy-nilly, badly injured. Yes. Killed? No.) So let me pose this question, why can't there be a happy medium between consent and non-consent? Some way to protect the people who are playing to have a story, and for whom constant death and destruction and combat isn't the one true way? Yet not ruin it for the people who only care about combat, "Character a week/month" sorts? It would help bring people back, and bring in a lot more players in general. There are many options for this. XP penalties if you'd be brought to a 'dead' level but aren't consent. Limitations on consent characters. And probably countless other options.

But really, there needs to be some happy medium, at least. And I do not believe it isn't possible. Truthfully, even consent places still get character death, and dramatic moments. And more importantly, the rivalries then have time to blossom, and people get more creative about their conflicts. It's a lot easier to stay friends with the player of an 'enemy' when they make a great political coup that ruins you financially and sets you back to square one than with the one who only seems to care about killing you. Nothing more. Frankly, in a shared storytelling environment, the latter often comes off as a jerk. The former? You page and congratulate on a wonderful move, and then get to plotting your revenge! It makes the conflicts far more epic in general than 'you've made an enemy, prepare to die.'

This is where things start to merge between the two issues I have too. Because this is especially true for newer, less active, and weaker PCs in general regardless of the reason. If their enemy is an established PC... they might not be able to ever have a chance against them. Might not even have the friends yet to do so. And it is a lot easier for the established ones to kill them. And then game over. "Well, that sucked. That player is a jerk!" (Insert flamey departure bbpost, flameout on boards, hurt feelings, etc). If that same player has some protection though? (Again, especially beyond +escapes, which were expensive, and a determined enemy could easily run you down on, unless you were like a level 60+ sort or something... and for newer people, again, do you pay 100 for a +escape you'll likely have to burn soon anyways? Or do you level up and hope it gives you that edge needed to be able to just survive while your friends help you? A lose-lose situation in general). But anyways, if there are protected by something less harsh than flat out no restrictions non-consent? They have a chance to grow, and to build that rivalry. To be the farm kid who sees their master killed and eventually grow to the point they can take part in more epic conflicts.

Still another issue was how it made it almost impossible to even have a casual scene. If you wanted to RP going out to dinner with your friends for once, or being at the ball, or whatever? Good luck. It was almost impossible to have a casual scene that didn't get attack. To the point that the supposedly most safe planet in the Galaxy was often the most dangerous to RP on, as it was a guaranteed large group for the combat sorts to attack. Indeed, it got to the point of stupidity, the simple number of scenes that were disrupted. It went well past furthering a story, and all it created was anarchy. It also led to a lot more 'possee' and 'clique' RP, because, again, you didn't have any other option if you wanted to be safe. This could easily help diversify play if every little casual scene didn't carry with it the possibility of the death of your beloved character.

But do realize, again, I'm not necessarilly calling for purely consent based. I'm calling for discussion on how that happy medium can be achieved in a way that will allow people from both camps to have fun and be able to play the sort of characters and game they want. And I do think things likeinjuries and financial losses should still stay non-consent. As they allow some very creative ways to harm your enemies that are not killing, and honestly encourage much more creative and epic RP in general.

But now for another reason the two systems I mentioned cause issues when combined too. Non-consent as it is, created a lot of bad feelings just like I said, and the same or similar complaints often came from both sides of an issue. The tensions wore very thin, nerves frayed, and it just kept getting worse. On a place where voting doesn't rely on activity to such a huge extent, this is the point most players will just log out and take a break. Yet now, with non-consent, you've got rivals. Enemies. And like heck are you going to let them get more XP than you do! So instead of logging out after a bad experience, you stay on. And worse, start to vent, likely to friends via page, or on a factional channel, possibly to admin or even on Public. Or even arguing with said person. This gets unhealthy too. It keeps the rivalries from turning into friendships by leaving too much room to exacerbate the problem. I saw this happen with my friends. And I know this happened with me. And I watched it happen to many other players too. Seriously, logging in is good. Being on a lot is good too. But when the very nature of the advancement system forces you to stay on when you know darned well you shouldn't be around? That's not good. And the biggest reason why the interaction of Non-consent with votes caused a lot of issues, in my perception. The simple fact this could help calm people down and make taking a short (day or two) break feel more realistic and not like it would be punishing yourself, it really would help keep things from exploding and people from being so pissy at each other.

Anyways, this went a lot longer than I thought it would. So I'll just cut it short here. Those issues being addressed to some extent are the two single greatest things necessary to get me to come back, or stay. And a few others I know besides. A new XP rewarding system (The cost changes I read about seem good! But do not go to the root of the problem that I mentioned, and wouldn't change it at all, in fact!). And some way to help bridge the gap between purely consent and purely non-consent. I do think both are possible. The former already sounds like most people believe and want a solution for. The latter? Well, hopefully this spurs some serious discussion. I do believe a solution can be found and it will end up allowing everyone to have fun yet, and keep the feel of risk and the epic nature that the administration is going for. And honestly? Help foster a more friendly environment on the Mu* in general.

Has anyone else ever NOT voted for a rival/enemy to deny them XP even if you RPed with them?

I certainly know I've had the concern, though I've never done it myself.

I think the XP issue is an important one. But there hasn't really been any good ideas from players OR staff that make people go "YES! That would solve everything!" instead they often open up more problems (voting circles, reserving the "higher-worth votes" for your friends.

I think it's still open for discussion, but I'm not sure how we can improve on stuff... if you limit votes, which will stop vote orgies, then you have people just vote for friends, and not seek out RP as much... but yeah...

The consent thing is a more... complex issue. I understand that having people who want to kill kill kill with no regard for anything else is annoying. I definitely know what you're saying of being ambushed and jumped on Coruscant because that's kinda the "gathering" planet with no response from local authorities, and no PCs able to counter the hitmen.

But was it really this lack of consent that caused these problems? Or was it lack of consequences. For all the talk on DH1 of "ICA=ICC" how many people often saw it?

A criminal could shoot a senator, then walk around the city... no ICC.

I think Storytellers are going to be trying to enforce ICC a bit better. Their primary focus is on empowering PC actions and story. But I think even the "bad guys" will appreciate having to react to the guards noticing them and the like.

And with a +check system from the start... focusing on a single skill (like blasters) won't be as much of a benefit as spreading out some of your levels. You might still be the blastermaster, but it will be easier for a mechanic to be a blaster-almost-master to throw some challenges up there.

I personally never had a problem with the no-consent system. But I _do_ understand the problems that you're listing. I've played on consent systems, as well... and it's just... a different beast.

One thing that IS changed is escaping. It's not JUST +escapes that let you get away. There is a skill system that lets you escape or get captured without burning up +escapes, which means that even if you can two-shot kill someone, they can run away from you and get away if you didn't level up more broadly.

Anyway... more friendliness is definitely what is needed. I think the competition is a bit too angry sometimes. People want to win, that's natural, but a lot of times people take curt stances and try to bully their way through scenes, demanding this advantage or that or trying to limit what their "rivals" can do.

I'm curious what others DO think about consent vs non-consent (and I think more XP talk is always good.)

I'm in favor of non-consent. Even though Exile said it didn't work out for him, he did say it forced him and others to gather into groups for self-protection, which I think is what Star Wars RP should be all about: groups of players and PCs working together. I'm looking forward to DH2's improved ICA = ICC making things easier in general for players who are not looking for trouble every minute of log-in time.

Generally, I'm in favor of finding ways to solve issues ICly rather than OOCly. I think the Storytellers is a great way to do that.

The XP issue is something I really have no idea how to solve. I like DH's system. I can't speak for other players, but there was a time when I was vote-happy, RPing to get votes and not really caring about who I voted for, just as long as they RPed. Slowly thats changed. I'm much for disciplined and discriminate in my voting these days.

OK, you mention gathering in groups is a good thing.

What about the fact it often forced us not to RP at all? Or to be unable to go to scenes we might really like to go to because our friends weren't online to go with? Or how 'hunters' might wait for your friends to not be online before going after you because they knew they'd have a chance? That's just gaming the system. And abusing non-consent entirely. And worse, keeping people from being able to play the game. Why should you have to not feel safe even going to a casual RP scene just because your friends - who would go with you if they were not restricted by RL - cannot be there? I honestly think non-consent prevented more scenes than it caused because of this effect. And this combines with the voting thing to create far more tensions than it was worth. Sure the votes might force you out, but when it backfired? Well... really sucked to be you. No you choose if getting a level is worth it and RP, or having to save up for a new escape.

I also wrote a massive reply about the Voting thing, including some new suggestions and arguments... but not sure if I should do it here in fear of derailing the non-consent topic. Or in the long inactive XP thread.


EDIT TO ADD: Another downside of the voting and non-consent combined - you often could not get your group to gather and allow you to safely go to a scene because they'd "Already RPed with X people there, and need more votes" and you've already played with most of the people where they are - so there, it makes groups necessary, but the interaction often kept you from being able to do so. So in collaboration, it didn't allow what you said. It made it the ideal, but didn't make it possible.

And I will also just state, again, I'm talking about a happy medium too. Mostly confined to being killed or character concept 'destroying' injuries (Maiming, sterilizations, etc). Everything else being non-consent. From being wounded, captured, losing your political office, fortune, etc. (Actually, the fortune thing reminds me. A nice suggestion would be not tying wealth to level and easy investments at all might be nice, it makes economic warfare an option!)

I think the reason why combat was so rampant in DH1 was, as Firehawk said, there were no IC consequences. I can probably count on one hand the number of times a sniper or bomber's been caught, much less a common mugger or thug in the entire history of DH1. IC Enforcement was severely lacking. Storytellers will be the ones that help bridge the gap between ICA:ICC. I don't think non-consent is entirely the problem.

I respect the points of Exile but I personally will not play on a consent based MU. Leads to provocation that you cannot respond to and players generally acting like hotshots and OOCly gaming the fact that they cannot get attacked/killed.

I ended up replying with my Voting only commentary to the Vote thread, just to keep this one more focused on the Non Consent issues, and the issue of how the two interrelate to make the issue worse.

And Tah, while I agree to a point. As things did get ridiculous with escaped criminals able to waltz into secure functions and bringing weapons on planets that supposedly allowed none (Alderaan, for instance). I'm not sure just having GMs covering it will be enough. Since, allegedly, such was being done by judges before I left. I never saw it, most of the time they just sided with their friends. It really gave the impression of only seeking combat being allowed, not trying to avoid it. No matter how much common sense was twisted in the doing of.

#748 wrote:

I respect the points of Exile but I personally will not play on a consent based MU. Leads to provocation that you cannot respond to and players generally acting like hotshots and OOCly gaming the fact that they cannot get attacked/killed.

As I said again and again. I'm talking a happy medium. Not entirely Consent. Wounds, prisoner, destruction of livlihood? Those are all valid. The only thing I have issues with is the death thing. And you must be playing on a lot of the places I didn't, because I rarely saw things get so bad as you state on purely consent places.

And why can't you respond to provocation? What's wrong with "To the Pain" or a Monte Cristo style plot to destroy their lives instead of just killing them? That's the sort of thing stories are made out of. Not kill kill kill. And even on Consent based places, that's the sort of thing you can do. It helps encourage creativity, not relying only on your fists. Because honestly, that was the only sort of grudge ever perpetrated on DH. To the Death. I never once, in almost a year, saw someone just try to destroy someone else's livelihood. (Well, ok. I did. One of my friends did it. but that was literally the only person I ever saw do so). It was always either attack someone yourself, or just slap on a super high bounty and let the bounty hunter Characters of the Week/Month get their kill kill kill on. What's the story in that? Not all that much, really. No elaborate moves and counter moves, just right to killing.

(I really need to start thinking more before posting!) EDIT ADDS: And in fact, it made it almost impossible to even try to pull a Monte Cristo. You just don't have the option. T he second you try messing with someone they get pissy and throw on bounties. And often Non-Consent was "OOCly Gamed" simply because people couldn't respond. Every argument was just "It's what my PC would do! Be a Sociopath!" (Yes, I'm exaggerating a bit and using some hyperbole, but the trend was there). So again, I call for some sort of happy medium that will keep both sides happy, and help make the game a more appealing place in general.

I agree that people were silly about how attacking and killing went sometimes, but I think we should all have the ability to do whatever we want. It really seems like pass or fail on DH2 will weigh heavily on the moderation done by staff and enforcement of the rules and quality RP standards, which is what never happened on DH1. If that is done correctly I think these issues will go away regardless of non-consent.

A LOT of people get "free passes" on DH1. Incapped and let go... some dont'... but I've seen a LOT of people just be dropped and ignored as the scene goes on.

At least, recently.

Yeah, you're making a good point, Exile. Judges were covering it... but they also weren't.

No one was doing anything about ICC... and PCs that tried often found it rather boring work since there was no support to find out, ICly, who did any crime. No evidence trail, nothing... so why be a cop? You can't do anything. Criminals, at least, got to DO stuff!

Will it change? We're trying to, yeah. And input like this is useful.

That's new then. Most of the time when I was there, people would ignore everything just to get the +kill. It was all a game of whittling down a person's +Escapes.

Some people still do, sure.

But I don't think it's that common at the present time.

One thing to keep in mind with the ICC for ICA.

Player X bombs Coruscant, the staff are asked to help in the investigation. A BBpost is put out asking for the bomber to contact the staff so we can set up generic info to start the investigation. Make it something to get involved in, you know?

Days go by...weeks... a few more posts are made to a silent crowd.


Hard to help with ICC for ICA when no one is responsible for the action that may spark an awesome investigation scene.

So Storytellers will be a great help in that department

I have seen folks for no reason just attack someone. Or because they didn't like someone OOCly or because it was Monday...there were a lot of non-reasons. I know my character never shot at someone unless there was a valid reason. And honestly it wasn't often more than a single shot.

I also know of myself trying to do an investigation on a crime. I ended up paging a judge and said I wanted to do an investigation on the crime. What I got, and all I got back, was a page giving a very partial description of the player. No RP and no real investigation. I know of twice that a Judge contacted me about an investigation and I gladly gave the information. I trusted this judge and he used what I told him after evaluating what I told and the circumstances of the crime to the investigation. But this was long a go and hasn't happened for a very long time. I honestly gave up trying to hold investigations.

From what I have been told this will change in DHII. I really hope so. I also hope that the shooting for no real IC reason (yes, you can come up with "something" as a reason but I am talking of real IC reasons) will have real consequences and not be just allowed and even praised.

My preferred example to illustrate the difference remains the 'father's murderer at an ice-cream bar' scenario.

Antipode Starscreamer, a young Resistance fighter, lost his father six months ago when Jax Crimean, a cruel bounty hunter with a lot of Sith commissions, blew his brains out in the razorgrass region of Corellia. It was revenge for something old Lee Starscreamer had said in a cantina two weeks before (he mocked Jax's soul patch).

Now Antipode sees Jax (without his armor or a gun!) sitting in an ice cream bar in Coronet right nearby the Sith Garrison Fortress. He's chatting with Lu'vita, a Twi'lek dancer he has the hots for. This is considered a 'safer' part of town -- patrols go by every few minutes, and the Sith lookouts frequently grab a cone here.

Antipode has a hold-out blaster concealed in his wallet. Sneaking closer, he opens fire!

---

The difference between DH1 and DH2 is what happens next. In the DH1 system, maybe Jax counterattacks and kicks Antipode's ass, or maybe Jax gets blasted. In the DH2 system ...

Maybe Jax counterattacks and kicks Antipode's ass, or maybe Jax gets blasted, but either way, the attack is happening in the shadow of the Garrison Fortress. Let's say that Antipode actually kills Jax, avenges his father, and turns to flee. To his horror, he discovers that the Sith security forces have surrounded the ice cream bar. They are firing at him every round and the door is jammed shut; the only way of getting out would be to leap onto the ice cream bar's chandelier and ram it through the second story window. It will take an Athletics roll at Nearly Impossible to escape!

Let's say that Antipode gets really lucky and makes the roll! He scrambles off and vanishes into the distance. End of story, right?

Not really. A warrant is issued for Antipode's arrest. There were witnesses who saw him do it, there's security footage, it's pretty clear what he did. Whenever he shows up in public in Coronet, the police come barging in to arrest him. Bounty hunters are sic'd on him. He starts to feel like a Grand Theft Auto character with five Wanted stars. Then he dies.

Is it worth it? Sure, if his character has the motivation to seek suicidal revenge at any price -- he loved his father, who was cruelly snatched from him in the prime of life. No price is too much to pay. He has a very moving scene before the Sith execute him in the public square, and his last words are 'Father--I have avenged you!'

But random violence? That can be cool too, but it won't be ubiquitous. People will almost certainly prefer to do it in the 'danger zones' rather than the 'safer zones'.

I've already voiced my opinion on +votes and XP, and I still stand by a system that doesn't punish people for not being social butterflies and RPing in every scene ever because they can be online all the time.

Personally, I prefer non-consent systems. I've seen consent-based go horribly wrong, as it takes a certain level of maturity to pull it off; maturity that you're not going to find in the typical player.

I have seen situations where Player X hunts Player Y with an unreasonable fervor, and sometimes it comes from Player Y being a poor sport about Player X hunting them. Would I prefer if Player X paged Player Y in advance and arranged a scene like that? Yes. I've done it a few times myself, and it wasn't too bad for either party. Will Player Y be a good sport about it? I can only hope, as I've seen people develop an almost unreasonable attachment to their characters.

Here's to hoping that crime and investigation of will work better in DH2. Preferably, as Gulp described it, with less random violence in the fancy parts of town.

Consent and Non-consent reach levels that approach Religion amongst Mu*ers. And the fact I'm basically preaching to the opposite end of the spectrum is very, very apparent. Though I knew this was an up-hill battle from the get go because many of the ones who I had the biggest arguments with... were staff.

The fact remains, Non-consent is easily open to abuse. What about the Players who just simply do not care about consequences? A dead character, "Meh, re-roll, see how long I can go on a killing spree this time before I run out of escapes/luck/whatever?" This is compounded by the fact those players are usually not only the biggest twinks and will figure out exactly what sweet spot they need (Often through trial and error over multiple characters, but they will find it) and seem to be the ones a certain subset of other kill for fun players constantly praise. To them, XP, whatever, means nothing. They are playing for the express purpose of fighting. Nothing more. I know of at least three players on DH who said multiple times on channel that was their only reason for playing. To fight. They could care less about anything else, including their character. They will use non-consent as their excuse to fight, and often just invent a reason on the spot, like our sniper cat friend above said. To them, there is no downside at all. Unless frequent patterns of abuse are noted, and they run the risk of being told they are a detriment to the game, please don't come back.

Yet at the other end of the spectrum there are people who play for a story. And anarchistic non-consent abusers can completely ruin their play experience. One thing to eventually, despite months of exchanges, die in an epic battle with your arch-rival. Quite another to be out in public, and randomly sniped because someone felt like fighting and knew you were the newest/weakest/most likely for him to be able to kill character there. Especially when being hunted down and killed in a massive combat is exactly what the non-consent abuser wants to happen! It is just a chance to create a newer, more twinked character.

Exile i've never really seen any of the stuff you are talking about happen and i've been on DH since the beginning.

I cannot name a single person in the last 6 months who was forced to +die because they ran out of escapes. People usually +die because they are frustrated and want to start over, or orchestrate death scenes well in advance with their enemies. This whole sniping and whittling down escapes business just does not, and never did happen.

There are plenty of consent based SW mus out there on the net and most all of them are rather boring and packed with socialites and TSers and very little action. From what I understand the main principle of DH is to provide action, adventure, politics , and romance instantly and at any second of the day. Having two parties that are often at odds ICly agree OOCly on what the scene is going to be is not realistic.

Royal Jelly said it best - That level of maturity is not present in 75-80 percent of MUers.

Incidents like you've mentioned, Exile, are fortunately few and far between. Yes, some people enjoy fighting and picking up new characters often - those characters then exist mostly to enrich other characters than to be remembered after death. But, most of those people don't fight to +kill, unless their opponent was, for lack of better words, petulantly whiny and uncooperative during the combat scene. I've seen those same 'combat-obsessed' people, later, have really awesome combat scenes were no one was incapacitated or killed. Those are the types of people that prefer something other than sitting and talking and want to develop their characters through other means.

In my experiences, people who prefer consent situations are those who care more about the story of their characters than the overall story. Player X could have done something ICly, gotten a bounty placed on them, and when a bounty hunter Y comes calling, they find ways out of the scene. Or the 'Can we do this next week? Getting IC repercussions for my actions doesn't work for me now, as I already have some RP with other people planned this week.' response. Avoid the IC consequences by delaying them. The average player doesn't have a long attention span for crime and punishment, so Bounty Hunter Y will eventually move on to another job that isn't as big a pain to deal with.

Now, I'm not saying non-consent always works. I would rather have a mixed system with clearly defined rules, regulations, and communication. Sure, copper, come after me whenever you want, but we'll have lots more fun with it if it's not at 3 in the morning.

I know of three characters that have been forced to use +die since launch so it does happen occasionally. But all three were combat-focused players.

I agree that "death only" bounties got old fast. They were next to impossible for bounty hunters to collect on so nobody tried and the IC Bounties and Death Marks BB just became a place for political comedy.

I also agree that there wasn't nearly enough done to promote ICC for ICA.

My opinion on the "consent v. non-consent" debate? Non-consent is open to abuse. Consent is open to abuse. I've seen both sides of the coin consistently abused to a similar degree. The key difference in abuse is the methods available for correction. Consent has always seemed worse because there is no IC mechanism for correction. You end up with one or two jerks abusing the system, other players feel impotent because they lack ways to stand up for themselves, and then they begin to leave. I've seen that same sad story repeat itself over the last decade.

Consent-based systems still suffer from abuse but there is still a strong mechanism for correction so long as consequences are enforced. That is something we failed to do on DH1 but I hope we can do it on DH2.

Sorry for the double post.

I suspect that some of the "kill, kill, kill" mentality for those engaging in wide-scale conflict comes from a lack of options. The only way to deal with an military-economic powerhouse was to use lethal force or destroy all of their stuff that you could find as often as you could find it. This still left you at risk since they would just pour their wealth into an alliance against you. Our mistake was designing an inherently competitive game (though it was far more competitive than Gulp or Y ever conceived) without providing alternate targets.

At the personal and pure-story level a player could draw from a wide range of possible targets. Kidnap a kid sister, steal a something with sentimental value to the player, or even your basic threats and bluster. Players tend to forget about all that and we really should remind them more often. I'd encourage everyone to find an IC rival with similar connect times.

#748 wrote:

Exile i've never really seen any of the stuff you are talking about happen and i've been on DH since the beginning.

I cannot name a single person in the last 6 months who was forced to +die because they ran out of escapes. People usually +die because they are frustrated and want to start over, or orchestrate death scenes well in advance with their enemies. This whole sniping and whittling down escapes business just does not, and never did happen.

.

It happened to my own character. And was a big reason I ended up quitting. I retired said character because of it, made a new one and played for a time, but didn't really keep it up. It wasn't the PC I wanted. Seriously, in the course of a week I was forced into using 5 escapes. Any time I went into public, one person would show up, and attack me. Ignoring all other combatants. And as my character was much weaker, I had no chance. I promptly gave up even RPing outside of a few very secure, private locations (In a ship in a hidden system, middle of a friend's battlefleet, etc) until I retired the character a couple weeks later because the heat never let up. So as I said, that not only forced me to fall behind because any venture into public was a loss of 100-200 XP if I wanted escapes back, it was a case of giving up any chance to even have fun! One sided fights were not fun, at all. And said attacker would just +escape and use one less the moment they did a +kill on my own. So netting fewer, presuming they didn't catch me alone to begin with.

I can personally name at least 6 others who retired for similar reasons at some point. Not because they were tired of their character, but because it was the only way to make sure they weren't killed. I think a big reason you don't see the trend is because most of the people who suffer from it end up quitting. Which does bring up yet another negative effect, the hostile players ruin it for the others who aren't so hostile. So perhaps it is just a grass is greener situation, or the rosy lens of enjoying something without seeing the results on the others. Because I really do believe that non-consent so ruthlessly enforced and abused brought out some of the rudest behavior I've ever seen in many years of Mu*ing. People going out of their way to ruin others fun, and saying so on channel, because they thought that was fun for -them-. There was rarely interest in helping a story. So again, perceptions at work. But the same sorts of abuses cited for Consent just exist in their own ways in non-consent.

And even a few bad apples, especially active ones, can be very good at spoiling a lot of different batches. And again, what difference does it make when they have no compunctions about the consequences? Yet in harming someone who is trying to have a serious story and RP, they can entirely ruin someone's experience?

This also begs the question of just why "Socialite" RP is bad. A large number of people enjoy it. And hey, sometimes we enjoy fighting too. Why is it something automatically hated and whom people go out of their way to ruin? Self-professedly so at that? Because I really did see all of the things I mentioned from more than one player. Often a rather large number.

It is very possibly to be interested in both your own story and that of the Mu* as a whole. And likewise, very possibly to find a good mixture. As I've always been calling for. If you want success, there must be some way. And it will at least make giving it a try a good option for the crowd who quit because of how bad things got. So if the goal truly is to win us back, keep this in mind. I know we miss many of the good RPers there. But the troubles just started outweighing the fun.

Re: T Competitive is good. We didn't expect it to be as competitive as it was. However, I always wanted it to be exceedingly competitive ICly, and relatively tranquil OOCly.

That's a lot to ask from players. I've seen it happen before, but it's not the norm.

---

On a different note, a quibble (and pardon my need of coffee, it may distort my syntax). Consent vs. no-consent is, at base, a question of control, no more. You can play a non-consent game for the love of the story; you can play a consent game for the love of the story. The only difference is whether you can exert editorial control over what can happen to your character.

It's a false dichotomy to posit non-consent-favoring vs. story-driven. The opposite of non-consent is consent; the opposite of story-driven is self-involved. These are two very separate binaries, and it's possible to prefer non-consent and be story-driven, prefer non-consent and be self-involved, prefer consent and be story-driven, or prefer consent and be self-involved.

A meaningful dialogue can be had about the merits of consent or non-consent systems. A meaningful dialogue can also be had on the merits of story-driven vs self-involved play. For what it's worth, DH2's going to be much more story-driven where DH1 was much more favorable to being self-involved. I doubt I'll be persuaded to change my mind on that one ...

coffee time.

I am not sure if this belongs in this thread or if it should be in one by it's self but here are some observations that, in light of in DH2 there will be ICC for ICA, that are not played out on DH1 and I wonder if it will be the players or the systems or the STs that will be doing the player's roles on DH2.

My example is that there are many bombs, snipings, attacks and the like going on. One half of the equation is doing something, posting news reports, acting on the circumstances that are occurring but it is only being done by a half of the active players. It seems that it is up to the players that should be acting in some manner but now days it seems as if it is ignored then it didn't happen. We hear that if someone bombs there will be automatic (or did I not understand it correctly) reactions to the bombing, or sniping, or attacks. If we can't get the players to play the story, tell the tale, RP the situation then what are we doing?

With this possible attitude that seems to have taken hold of DH1 what will be done on DH2 to prompt this from not happening? Will it all be done by staff, STs, and the like. Cause honestly all I see is little to no reactions by a large number of players at all levels. I think that, in light of the current topic, if the players reacted to the situations more actively then some of Exile's concerns would be policed by the player's themselves. As it is now no one reacts to much of anything. Could this be only because DH1 doesn't matter any more or what? I am really curious as to what others think and hear how this can be changed for DH2 or will we just leave it up to staff: "I got bombed, ok, Staff, take care of the investigations, tell me the results, then will see if I want to react." I sure hope this isn't the case.